State Rep. Kenny Bingham, a Cayce Republican who chairs the House Ethics Committee and the K-12 Ways and Means subcommittee, says he will consider co-sponsoring a refundable state earned income tax credit (EITC) if the numbers make fiscal sense to the state.

Currently, more than 500,000 South Carolina federal tax returns were filed for a federal EITC worth more than $1 billion. The credit, approved several times over four decades by a bipartisan congressional coalition, counts prominent backers as former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

“It appears that the one program that seems to have worked the best is the EITC in achieving the ultimate goal of trying to move people up the ladder to be self-sustaining when their income isn’t getting them there,” said Bingham, a former House majority leader.

The beauty about an EITC, many say, is it only goes to working people, which gives them an incentive to stay in work so they can receive the federal benefit, which averages just over $2,306 per return in South Carolina. For many low-income families, the tax credit is enough to lift them out of poverty, analysts say.

A new start of a conversation

The possibility of considering a state-based refundable EITC to be a companion to the federal credit came out in a July forum at the Riley Institute at Furman University when Bingham and State. Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, were discussing the option.

Cobb-Hunter, who has pushed for the poverty-fighting measure for years, said this week that she was happily surprised at Bingham’s openness to consider the measure. It’s a big deal, she said, because of the respect Bingham has in the legislature.

“I was shocked, but very pleased to hear him say that because I’ve been introducing this bill for years and it’s gone nowhere,” she said. “It means there is a chance for a bipartisan approach, which is always better than a solo approach.”

How EITCs work

At the federal level, an EITC is a refundable tax credit available for low- to moderate-income working individuals and families. Not only do those who want to get it have to work, but they have to file with the IRS to receive it. 

The benefit depends on income and the size of a family. In 2013, for example, a couple with no children could earn no more than $19,680 for a maximum benefit of $487. A couple with one child could earn no more than $43,210 for a maximum benefit of $3,250. Learn more here.

“It also encourages work and increases incentives to be in the work force, particularly where minimum wage jobs or near minimum wage jobs don’t provide enough to live on,” said policy analyst John Ruoff of Columbia.

Currently, 25 states offer an earned income tax credit. Of those, 21 are refundable, which means that recipients get a check from the state to lower their tax burden and offset other tax payments. Nonrefundable credits reduce an income tax liability to zero, but don’t provide a check for further tax relief. (In South Carolina, most people in poverty pay no income tax.)

In December 2012, Cobb-Hunter introduced a bill that called for a state EITC that would start at 10 percent of the federal EITC and phase up to 20 percent over five years.

According to a 2013 revenue impact study by the S.C. Board of Economic Advisers, a 10 percent refundable EITC from the state would cost $139.4 million -- meaning the state would write checks to those seeking a state EITC. If 500,000 returns sought such a credit, the average check would be $279.

Taking a deeper look

Yep, it's summertime.  There are few meetings around the Statehouse in August. Notable:

• Bonds. The Joint Bond Review Committee will meet 2 p.m. Aug. 4 in 105 Gressette in Columbia. On the 32-page agenda are items about the purchase of a new helicopter for SLED and several proposed leases and other projects. More.
  
  
• School safety. The first meeting of the new School Safety Task Force will be 2 p.m. Aug. 27 in 433 Blatt. More.

Series continues

The Riley Institute at Furman University will continue its series, “Can’t Win for Losing: The Crisis of the Working Poor,” with events on the first two Tuesdays of August:

• Aug. 5: “Chasing the American Dream: What does it take to climb the income ladder?” with Sarah Sattelmeyer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, Tammi Hart of Day and Zimmerman, and Dawn Dowden of Homes of Hope.
  
  
• Aug. 12: “Revitalizing the American Dream” with former Spartanburg Mayor Bill Barnet and Carol Naughton of Purpose Built Communities. There also will be a roundtable discussion with several people and hosted by Mark Quinn.

It didn’t take long for Secretary of State Mark Hammond’s shiny new database of state boards and commissions to become political fodder.

Following an exclusive item in last week’s issue of Statehouse Report, Democrat Ginny Deerin of Sullivan’s Island slammed the service as wasteful and inadequate. Deerin is running against Hammond in November.

She said the $200,000 database was 10 times too expensive, would have high maintenance costs and didn’t offer deep demographic information that should be available.

“It’s like buying a very expensive car with only one wheel,” Deerin said. 

The searchable database, which is updated daily, replaces old PDF reports that were updated twice a year.

Just eight years ago, 78 percent of South Carolinians voted to amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. But as the issue has gotten more attention over the years, attitudes changed, just as they did with divisive issues like segregation and interracial marriage.

The federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ruled 2-1 against a same-sex marriage ban in Virginia. That’s important to South Carolina, which falls under the jurisdiction of the appellate court, because it shows how the court likely would rule on the Palmetto State’s ban. 

U.S. Circuit Judge Henry Floyd of South Carolina wrote for the majority: “We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws.”

This ruling, like similar ones in other federal courts, clearly is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court where many analysts expect the high court to agree with the appellate courts.

What’s most interesting in South Carolina is how relatively muted the response has been from social conservatives, who ranted and raved to get an amendment passed eight years ago.   Since then, more people are open to gay marriage with just over 50 percent opposing it, according to a 2013 Winthrop Poll. A Charleston focus group this week involving a half dozen mostly 20-somethings revealed none disagreed with the appellate court. They noted it seemed silly for government to get involved with private relationships between two people.

There were some predicable public dissenters. A day after the ruling, the Palmetto Family Council said: “Our culture is crying out for stability, and with the rise of divorce and cohabitation, marriage as it has been defined from the beginning of time is weak. While we struggle in the courts to defend marriage, we must engage now in our communities and churches to strengthen it.”

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson didn’t have a statement on his office Web site but told media outlets he would pursue the state’s appeal of the same-sex marriage ban. 

Gov. Nikki Haley this week put out press releases on business development and sent emails for money for her re-election campaign. But she didn’t use the gay marriage verdict to rally conservatives.   

From spokesman Doug Mayer: “Despite this ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, South Carolina’s constitution has not changed and Governor Haley and this administration will continue to uphold the will of the people. ... (and) South Carolina will continue to be governed by the laws of our state.”

Democratic gubernatorial challenger Vincent Sheheen believes marriage is between a man and a woman. But he said now the state should pause legal battles over the issue until the Supreme Court decides.

“When that decision is given, we must come together and abide by the law of the land, and regardless of the outcome, churches must always maintain their ability to determine what ceremonies they conduct and recognize,” Sheheen said in an end-of-the-week statement. “Every South Carolinian should be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation, race or gender, and I will continue working to end discrimination in the workplace and to ensure schools are safe from bullying.”

Earlier in the week, Sheheen told the media he would monitor the situation, which ban opponents viewed as a cop-out.    With a close election ahead, Sheheen may have missed an opportunity to appeal for support from the state’s gay community, which votes and which has been disappointed with him.

Not quiet was independent Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Ervin and U.S. Senate petition candidate Thomas Ravenel, both of whom said continuing to fight the court’s appellate ruling was a waste of taxpayer money.

 “Government should not be in the bedroom, but it should also not be in the church,” Ervin said. “Individual churches should be allowed to decide which marriage ceremonies they want to perform.”

As a state, it’s time to accept that discrimination at the altar is, at its essence, discrimination. And as Americans, we shouldn’t tolerate it.

Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report.  He can be reached at:  brack@statehousereport.com.

• 7/25:  State's poverty areas like east Africa
• 7/18:  Governors' lengths of service over time
  
• 7/11: Is it fair to all concerned?
  
• MORE BRACK:  See our archives
• FEEDBACK:  feedback@statehousereport.com
  
  

By Bernadette R. Hampton
The S.C. Education Association
Special to Statehouse Report

AUG. 1, 2014 -- Education Superintendent Mick Zais fueled the Legislature’s irresponsible repeal of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and he now wants to micromanage the drafting of our “new” state standards. Zais apparently wants to leave one last mark before vacating his office in January.

In his most recent edict, Zais ordered those responsible for drafting the new standards to disregard the current ones. The arrogant Zais has issued questionable orders before, but this one is unreasonable and frankly impossible. New standards must be drafted by December so they may be considered by the new Legislature in January. Zais’s demand that drafters start from scratch and deliver a completely new product -- without any review in less than six months -- represents a prescription for failure. But he knows this.

To be clear, South Carolina’s educators indisputably support high academic standards. The process led by states to develop Common Core standards delivered just that. We adopted those standards in 2010 and school districts have invested four years and an estimated $100 million to gradually implement them. Zais’s latest folly will cost South Carolina about $66 million, not to mention the loss of time and effort. This sort of despotism goes well beyond irresponsible stewardship of precious state dollars.

Here’s an illustration of the foolishness of Zais’s order and his expectation. His own department conducted a comparative review of the standards and concluded that “an overall alignment of 97 percent between the CCSS and the South Carolina standards was found.” (p. 15, Common Core State Standards Initiative Comparative Review Report Prepared for the State Board of Education and the Education Oversight Committee, June 2010)

We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions.  But you've got to provide us with contact information so we can verify your letters. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. We generally publish all comments about South Carolina politics or policy issues, unless they are libelous or unnecessarily inflammatory. One submission is allowed per month. Submission of a comment grants permission to us to reprint. Comments are limited to 250 words or less.  Please include your name and contact information.  Send your letters to:

• feedback@statehousereport.com
  

S.C. Court of Appeals. Hats off for calling for a quick plan by the state to deal with radioactive groundwater that may be flowing way from a Barnwell County nuclear waste site. More.